>>197
How do you think you learn about math or recursion?
I got recursion through exposure to Lisp system (XLisp at the time). I have never learned any math, because I haven't attened school. Everything I know about math is from wikipedia.org.
if you're going to avoid talking about real things because you have problems with the the language used...
Cant see how language about "infinity sets" could be used to talk about "real things".
Except one lets me make accurate predictions and the other is just mythology.
Cant see how "infinity" is accurate.
You don't refuse to talk in English, but English is provably inconsistent as far as what sentences it
"consistency" is a buzzword and in reality, there are no contradictions, except those we invent/define.
I considered your subjective idealism as a hypothesis
It's not. It's just a program (doctrine if you like), that helps me to avoid junk theories, like your "Set Theory".
Ultrafinitism as a hypothesis
I'm not an "ultrafinitist"
Do you really think that...
I don't "think". I prefer more animalistic way of seeing and interpreting things. That is: I either sense or not. No silly "consiousness"/"thinking".
strong form of ultrafinitism (which posits some finite upper bound for naturals) doesn't have severe limiting consequences as far as what physical law can be?
Can't see this. And I don't know the "phyisical law" to have an opinion.
I wonder why does everyone consider you an ultrafinitist then? How did you manage to acquire this reputation?
No idea.
Does that mean you're merely agnostic about the existence of an infinity of finite natural numbers? Or that you posit an upper bound?
That means I can't see them, thus can't have reasonable opinion about them, except that they are just buzzwords.
Not entirely sure I understand what you mean by this.
I mean that world is "closed", like in your
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closure_(mathematics)
That is: no opcode will breach the userspace.
Newtonian physics is not wrong given the right context
The problem, there is no "right context" for newtonian physics.
"Newton saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation."
When I talked about non-trivial theories I didn't mean that they are higher in complexity. Actually they are much lower in complexity
Trivial| Non-Trivial
-------|------------------------------------------------------------------------
lambda | inference, lambda cube, strongly normalizing, equality-qualified types,
| algebraic types, existential types, phantom types, dependent types,
| higher-kinded types, linear types, inductive types, unique types,
| nominal types, recursive types, type classes, bounded quantification,
| type annotations, principal types, higher-order abstract syntax,
| generalized algebraic types, robinson unification, hindley-milner,
| constrained types, polymorphic recursion, parametric polymorphism,
| equivalence classes, type order, judgments, curry-howard isomorphism,
| system t, system f, products, coproducts, categorial sum, call-by-name,
| inhabited types, higher-rank impredicative polymorphism, covariance,
| subtype polymorphism, ad-hoc polymorphism, predicative types,
| signatures types, contravariance, affine types, structural subtyping...